Triumph Forsaken:
The Vietnam War, 1954-1965

Author: Mark MoyarCambridge University Press

In reading this book one should keep in mind the difference
between fact and judgment. Dr. Moyar's book offers his
judgment about facts that he presents. Orthodox
historians of the war in Vietnam can accept his facts,
add some facts of their own and make judgments contrary
to Moyar's. Judgment about U.S. military involvement in
Vietnam is going to continue to be divided according to
conflicting big-picture interpretations.

In Chapter One, Moyar writes that "driving out foreign
invaders was not the main chord of Vietnam's national
song; in-fighting was the primary chord." Moyar wishes
to deny the nationalism that motivated Ho Chi Minh and
his supporters: the desire to be rid of rule by foreigners.
Nationalism was a major force in the twentieth century.
It played a role in attracting some in Asia, including
Ho Chi Minh, to social revolution and Communism. Ho Chi
Minh was a Marxist-Leninist who resorted to brutal methods,
but to say that "infighting
was the primary chord" is
an absurdity. Infighting is not a goal. Infighting is the
result of conflicting goals.

To Moyar's main
point, he judges the rule of Ngo Dien Diem south of the 17th
parallel in Vietnam to have been legitimate. Communists
and their supporters in Vietnam believed the Diem regime
was not legitimate, and they believed they had more right
to apply their wills in Vietnam, north and south, than did
we Americans. Moyar has his facts. Those who judge differently
from Moyar have their facts: the 1954 Geneva Agreements, the
phony elections in South Vietnam in 1955 that gave Diem his
presidency (look it up) and so on. Moyar's book has a statement
before the title page that claims:

Drawing from a wealth of new evidence from all sides Triumph
Forsaken overturns most of the historical orthodoxy on the
Vietnam War.

This claim is preposterous. We know that Diem was a sincere
nationalist and much more, but it does not destroy the
arguments of the many scholars and others who believe that
U.S. intervention in Vietnam was a mistake. They have their
facts and the facts presented by Moyar.

And there will continue to be those in the U.S. who believe
that, no matter what, more military force should have been
applied in Vietnam for the sake of triumph in
rolling back Communism.